Religion and Politics: "Islamo-Fascism"

I'm off to a slow start with this blog, but I am transitioning jobs right now and have had to spend my creative time to job searching, writing cover letters and resumes, and such. However, I have picked up from the ether a little of the hub-bub over the Obama pictures.
I understand that these are considered a smear and lets be clear why - because it attempts to link Barak in our subconscious (or even concious) to being a Muslim. I believe most Americans find this type of politics distasteful. And even the conservatives distance themselves from it and kill two birds with one stone by attributing it to Hillary. (see attached photo of Drudge from 2/25)

Liberals such as Peter B. Collins (first two segments on Wednesday 2/28) and Steven Colbert rightly take umbrage against this tactic as a smear. But what doesn't get enough air time is the fact that we consider links to Islam a smear at all. Why is this picture news? Isn't it great that a potential president takes the time to get to know a foreign culture? As much as this may offend some Americans, this is softening the people in the region from which this clothing is native. (Apologies again as I haven't the time right now to learn more about this photo - I don't really know where it is from) This is symbolic of the type of diplomacy which is going to be needed to really keep America safe in the future.

What bothers me about the current atmosphere is that we are accepting Islam and associated symbols as a smear. Back in January, when asked about a malicious e-mail that sought to link Barak to nefarious Muslim past, he rightly defended himself by emphasizing his connection to his church. But what he missed was a chance to refute the whole idea of the email by asking - what is wrong with being respectful of Muslims or Islam? Especially when his father was one.

What is really going on here? Most Americans know that the "War on Terror" is not and cannot be a crusade against Islam. However, there are attempts - especially on talk radio to try to make it one. Much of what people would like to say cannot be said but they find ingenious and potentially more malicious ways around this.

For legal reasons above my head, it appears radio hosts cannot openly discuss hostility to a religion such as Islam too often. Sometimes they will let it slip and go on a diatribe against Muslims in general - but this does not happen every day. Instead what they do is use terms such as Islamo-Fascism - which is the most common term used by conservatives to refer to terrorists which who are also Muslims. There are variations of this such as Islamo-Nazi which Michael Medved frequently and proudly declares he prefers.

In their view, not all Muslims are terrorists, but all (most) terrorists are Muslim. Liberals just don't get the significance, importance, or tenacity of this enemy. The shorthand for this enemy is Islamo-fascist or Militant Islam or Islamist.

There are so many things wrong with this on so many levels. What I don't hear criticized is the insidious nature of putting these two terms together, and more generally, the sub conscious demonization of Islam in our culture.

I am not here to spread the Good News about Islam - although there is plenty to tell from first hand experience. In fact, I feel a little dirty writing about religion in what I want to be a political blog, especially when I know so little about it yet have a great respect for both of my parents, religious heritage. The concern is that we have to somehow extricate ourselves from this potentially disastrous foreign policy spiral that the policies of the current administration and its roots in the conservative base have sprung on the world. All you have to do to see where we are heading is to see who is profiting - dogmatic and violent elements on both sides of the religious divide.

With a new administration, I am optimistic that our countries foreign policy will return to a more mature and long term approach to conflicts (even if the next President is Senator McCain - he won't "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" that was pandering - he has too much respect for our military to involve them in that). However, we the public on the front lines of the ideological propaganda war will have to fight to preserve our cultural sanity when religion and politics mix.

And we can start by rejecting by what ever means possible (discussing, blogging, letters, etc.) the politics that uses smears of any religion to curry favor with a political base - left or right.

Topic: This Blog, Part I

I believe that right wing talk radio has had a critical role in our politics, at least since the fairness doctrine was repealed in 1987 and Rush Limbaugh exploded though the artificial void created by the doctrine. For reasons that I don't fully understand, but will explore as part of this blog, commercial talk radio was not as kind to liberal ideas and hosts.

The result was the domination of the most accessible part of our nations airwaves by radio hosts that were aggressively conservative in a combative manner that the liberals or democrats had no effective response to until recently. There have been those who were aware of the power of talk radio and did bring attention to its influence such as Bill Moyers, but their message was drowned out by the ubiquitous and 24 hour nature of talk radio.

The good news is that this is changing. The arguments put forward by the ideologues on talk radio have great, if not well distributed, counterparts on the left. Thom Hartmann is the best example. He gets it, and for three hours a day is doing his part to battle what must sometimes seem like a quixotic struggle against the established conservative elements of talk radio, including everything from the hosts, to the advertisers, managers, and the increasingly consolidated ownership.

Also there are people on cable such as Steven Colbert and Keith Olbermann who get it and take on conservative cable news and radio in ways that are decidedly more fun that this blog could ever be. (Although I will try . . . sometimes) These commentators and entertainers are critical because they are helping to make liberals "hip" again - something the right has tried to deny us by lambasting the liberals penchant for protesting and generally caring for things for reasons other than purely self-interest.

Finally there are the internets. The most democratic and arguably effective means of communication . . . ever. So far the politics of the internet has been dominated by liberal interests - which I find hopeful and deeply satisfying. ("fake" evidence here).

To be continued . . .